I don't. The problem with the old system is that these days the cars are too reliable and more than 15 cars are consistently finishing races. The 9/10-6-4-3-2-1 system was good and very fitting at a time when it was normal for less than half the cars to reach the chequered flag. Back in the day, if you were driving for a small team like today's Caterham, HRT and Marussia, you could have scored some points at particular races every season by simply cruising to the finish, while today even a perfect race is unlikely to result in even a top 10 finish. The current system also encourages racing in the mid-pack and I can't see any fault in that. Giving points to the top 15 has always worked well in motorbikes due to the high finish rates so I don't see why a similar system (points to top 10) should not be used in F1 now that the finish rates are similarly very high. Winning championships still requires race wins anyway, so I can't really see any serious detrimental side-effects in the renewed system.

I don't. The problem with the old system is that these days the cars are too reliable and more than 15 cars are consistently finishing races. The 9/10-6-4-3-2-1 system was good and very fitting at a time when it was normal for less than half the cars to reach the chequered flag. Back in the day, if you were driving for a small team like today's Caterham, HRT and Marussia, you could have scored some points at particular races every season by simply cruising to the finish, while today even a perfect race is unlikely to result in even a top 10 finish. The current system also encourages racing in the mid-pack and I can't see any fault in that. Giving points to the top 15 has always worked well in motorbikes due to the high finish rates so I don't see why a similar system (points to top 10) should not be used in F1 now that the finish rates are similarly very high. Winning championships still requires race wins anyway, so I can't really see any serious detrimental side-effects in the renewed system.

Exactly, back then you expected someone's engine to blow up pretty much every race and all sorts of other mechanical failures. Now the reliability is amazing, wasn't there a race last year where all 24 finished?

And I also think the drivers are much more cautious around each other now - they know that there are points on offer down to 10th and they can overtake so are less likely to attempt a kamikaze lunge taking out several cars at the first corner. Maybe I'm just being nostalgic but I'm sure there used to be far more serious first corner incidents with cars getting airborne and flipping - now it seems very rare, they lose a few front wings and maybe the odd car spins but the drivers are much more civilised at the start of a race.

I think the current system is fair, none of the 'new' teams have scored a point yet so it still a considerable challenge to get a point (although the number of 13th/14th places they get is still a bit of a lottery).

Exactly, back then you expected someone's engine to blow up pretty much every race and all sorts of other mechanical failures. Now the reliability is amazing, wasn't there a race last year where all 24 finished?

And I also think the drivers are much more cautious around each other now - they know that there are points on offer down to 10th and they can overtake so are less likely to attempt a kamikaze lunge taking out several cars at the first corner. Maybe I'm just being nostalgic but I'm sure there used to be far more serious first corner incidents with cars getting airborne and flipping - now it seems very rare, they lose a few front wings and maybe the odd car spins but the drivers are much more civilised at the start of a race.

I think the current system is fair, none of the 'new' teams have scored a point yet so it still a considerable challenge to get a point (although the number of 13th/14th places they get is still a bit of a lottery).

I'd prefer to see a points system that attributed points for all 24 cars. This would reward reliability even more so, which I think should be (and probably is) the focus nowadays.

I like the old 10-6-4-3-2-1 system but agree with the point that reliability is so high now, even top 10 is out of reach for Caterham and co, whereas 10 years ago, 10-12 finishers was about par.
But neither should points be given out, they should be hard earned. The bikes have their way and F1 has its way. It would devalue points if you gave them out like confetti for the sake of it.

I have a championship editor for my rFactor racing game, so I just have 1 point for 20th, then 2, then 4, then 8 etc and keep doubling until you have 2^20 (1,048,576) points for the winner, so each extra place gets double, making drivers go for passes.
It encourages racing down the field whilst still heavily rewarding the winner.
It'll never happen but I like using that online.

Exactly, back then you expected someone's engine to blow up pretty much every race and all sorts of other mechanical failures. Now the reliability is amazing, wasn't there a race last year where all 24 finished?

And I also think the drivers are much more cautious around each other now - they know that there are points on offer down to 10th and they can overtake so are less likely to attempt a kamikaze lunge taking out several cars at the first corner. Maybe I'm just being nostalgic but I'm sure there used to be far more serious first corner incidents with cars getting airborne and flipping - now it seems very rare, they lose a few front wings and maybe the odd car spins but the drivers are much more civilised at the start of a race.

I think the current system is fair, none of the 'new' teams have scored a point yet so it still a considerable challenge to get a point (although the number of 13th/14th places they get is still a bit of a lottery).

I'm confused by the points system. It's not fair at all. I believe the podium positions should have a percentage boost above the prior positions, and the point go until last place. Points should be given to the lowest reasonable level of performance (finishing a race) and the highest (winning). No points are given to people who do not classify at the end. The points division is linear from last until 4th, and then a percentage increase for second and third, then further again for first place. It's much more logical because it ranks the whole field PROPERLY!!! and drivers in the lower teams can be seen by how consistent they are as well, which is important, not just a flash of pace from a freak race, as the result is generally not very fair. Good example is Marussia. They outclassed HRT by a mile last year but HRT beat them because of one freak race where a lot of people crashed. There's no averaging of performances.

It would be something like this (note the points given out would be greater than today for obvious reasons):

Note the way that first steps down to second, third steps down to fourth, 6th steps down to seventh, and 10th steps down to 11th, relative to the rest of the % difference of points given. It's so a "top 10" result still has some form of merit. There really is no drawback to this system at all, its just simpler to rank the lower teams, as explained above.

23rd and 24th dont exist because i spent 5 minutes on this and havent divied up the points correctly yet and cant be bothered figuring it out.

I think the current system works fine, as it suits with the close-to-no technical DNF races we see nowadays. I would maybe like to see a slightly more deviated drop from 2nd onwards to reward the higher places, such as changing

25-18-15-12-10-8-6-4-2-1

to

25-18-14-11-8-6-4-3-2-1

10-6-4.... worked well with the numerous retirements, whereas 10-8-6.. was terrible in itself (gotta have difference between getting from 3rd to 2nd and 2nd to 1st) as well as making 2005 a nightmare for me.

I think the current system is a pretty good compromise, but I'd be more inclined to add to the number of drivers who gain points than decrease it, like Jaybools is suggesting. The only small drawback, if you will, is that the cost of a non-finish becomes a bit larger. There really is no need to talk about the devaluation of points, cause the new points system has already screwed up any records you could have about points collecting anyway. The point of the points system is to determine the order of drivers/teams over the season and surely, with current high reliability standard, it would be beneficial in determining the difference between the slowest cars if they granted more points, not less.

SirRacer's idea doesn't make much sense, cause suddenly fighting for 10th position is very worthwhile, but then it doesn't make much difference whether you are 10th or 8th. that's inconsistent.

There have been numerous changes to the system over the last 20 years so I wouldn't be surprised if more are on the way in the next 5 years. I'm not gonna speculate though, and I'm really quite fine with the current system. I wish I could remember right away how many points each place is worth, but that's not really an important matter.

In my opinion, a proper point system should always increase the point difference percentage compared to the previous position, until this is no longer possible (1 point difference). This ensures there is always a relative gain.

I do not understand why a 15-10-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 points system is not discussed at all or seriously in F1 circles and by F1 fans. It isn't a massive increase in the points being distributed since the winner gets 5 points more rather than 15 which just seems out of place in Formula 1. There is a good distance between the winner and 2nd place and you get 10 drivers earning points. IMO, it's the best system for this generation of high reliability cars.

I do not understand why a 15-10-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 points system is not discussed at all or seriously in F1 circles and by F1 fans. It isn't a massive increase in the points being distributed since the winner gets 5 points more rather than 15 which just seems out of place in Formula 1. There is a good distance between the winner and 2nd place and you get 10 drivers earning points. IMO, it's the best system for this generation of high reliability cars.

It's better than most systems mentioned here. Actually I don't see a better one.

I do not understand why a 15-10-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 points system is not discussed at all or seriously in F1 circles and by F1 fans. It isn't a massive increase in the points being distributed since the winner gets 5 points more rather than 15 which just seems out of place in Formula 1. There is a good distance between the winner and 2nd place and you get 10 drivers earning points. IMO, it's the best system for this generation of high reliability cars.

So someone who is running 5th would only get 2 extra points if he can get onto the podium? Hardly worth the effort you might think.

To encourage overtaking, you need a situation where every position gained gives a decent increase in points.

Don't forget every non point finish has the place recorded, as indeed does every tied points position. That's why I like 10-6-4 or 100-60-40-etc if needs be. Interesting to compare nonetheless.

Yes, but as said, it favours luck when it comes to determining the order of the backmarkers at the end of the season. It's not really fair there and giving points to more people really does not change the nature of the fight at the top either, so I don't see why you should prefer the old system to giving points to more people..

I find it difficult to understand comparisons such as these. Drivers and teams don't race being blind to the kind of point system in place. If it is a 10-6-4-3-2-1 system, you can design a car that even if it is a bit unreliable and won't finish some races, but would compensate more than enough by winning by incorporating extra pace. If it is a 10-8-6-4-3-2-1, you can keep finishing P2 and can still be in the title fight all the way. Reliability and finishing races is more important here. When they used to count best 11 races etc., shot at winning was more important than just being reliable and finishing every race. So, drivers and teams race for the system in hand. It is not that straightforward to compare different systems or different seasons.

Anyway, when someone puts in so much work into a post, it can never be bad. Kudos to that!

Note the way that first steps down to second, third steps down to fourth, 6th steps down to seventh, and 10th steps down to 11th, relative to the rest of the % difference of points given. It's so a "top 10" result still has some form of merit. There really is no drawback to this system at all, its just simpler to rank the lower teams, as explained above.

23rd and 24th dont exist because i spent 5 minutes on this and havent divied up the points correctly yet and cant be bothered figuring it out.

My favorite system would be something similar to this.

1- it would better rank the lower teams2- it would incentive drivers to keep racing even if the car had some minor problems3- more midfield fight for positions

A completely different system, but still valid would be the best position system. You're classified by the best position you achieve (similar with Bernie trophies).

1- we would see some crazy strategies and epic races with it since the risk-reward curve would be much better2- more fights for top positions but far less for lowers3- luck would be even more significant in the final results

^That's hardly a change at all over the current one tbh. Except in making the places around 7th-10th more valuable.

The current points system isn't "traditional" while 15-10-8 is. It's more along the lines of the 10-6-4 system, it'll be easier to calculate as well. It's just me being a stickler for tradition, which isn't a bad thing necessarily.

Hmm, just thought further - points are so uninteresting. I think people would prefer something more tangible. Instead of 1 point for the winner how about they get a medal instead. The one with the most medals at the end of the seasons is champion.